Law student schools police officer on gun laws

[string6guru]

http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/02/5 ... un-rights/

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[MNMGoneShooting]

Very sad to know he has to have that extensive knowledge to be released.

[MarcSpaz]

Wow! What a bunch of crap. I hope I don't get put on the spot like that. I would have problems keeping my composure.

[Jakeiscrazy]

Excellent job on the part of the OCer. Half of having a good ability to deal with law enforcement is knowing your rights. That said anytime I have dealt with Chesterfield PD and found they don't want to seize my firearm and they don't even ask for ID. I reckon the must be well informed as to the fact that many people take issue with those things.

[Vince]

Very sad to know he has to have that extensive knowledge to be released.

^^^This, I almost never OC just because of crap like this. To many people that do not know VA is an OC state and just call the police.

[GeneFrenkle]

What is also sa is that a "professional police firce" has no knowldge of the laws they supposedly enforce. I don't understand how they can stay employed while demonstrating such lack of knowledge. Ignorance of the law is no excuse - it works both ways.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Machias]

I just moved here from Washington State. Out there, if you are going to or from or are engaged in a lawful outdoor activity i.e. hiking, fishing, hunting, berry picking, horseback riding, whatever, anything lawful outdoors you can carry concealed without a Concealed Weapons Permit. We had instructors at one of the main Law Enforcement academies in the state teaching all new LEOs that you could never carry concealed without a permit. Very frustrating when they are teaching the new recruits to be screwed up right from the start.

[MarcSpaz]

Wow, instructors who don't know the laws? That's pretty bad.

Unfortunately, when we engage in some activities such as shooting as a hobby or for self defense, it looks like you really need to be up to speed on current Federal and State laws just to combat their ignorance.

[steelheart]

Pos "smart" phone wont play the vid!! I gather the jist of the vid is an OCer is getting harrased. Again.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Jakeiscrazy]

Pos "smart" phone wont play the vid!! I gather the jist of the vid is an OCer is getting harrased. Again.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Try this youtube version:

Basically he knew the law and the exact court cases. Was respectful and refused ID got let know.

[gunderwood]

What is also sa is that a "professional police firce" has no knowldge of the laws they supposedly enforce. I don't understand how they can stay employed while demonstrating such lack of knowledge. Ignorance of the law is no excuse - it works both ways.

That's not the correct way to use that "quote..."

It was made by Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, but by leaving out the most critical part of it everyone changes the meaning. The rough translation for Latin is: "Ignorance of the Law, which we all know and are bound by, is no excuse." The original intent has been perverted so much that modern lawyers and judges now argue about all the decisions that came after which used the principle rather than the actual principle.

This is just like the 2nd Amendment debates. Many people are led astray by contrived arguments about the "2nd not being clear," "it only applied to Militia," "regulation in the modern sense is ok rather than how the term was used at the time," etc. Most people here know that those arguments to be utter BS. The 2nd (really the whole BoR) came out of the VA, NY, and MA ratification conventions and the only reason the Constitution was ratified was because of promises made to those three state concerning the BoR. The record is very clear that they wanted their people to possess arms and did not want the Feds to have any power of their ability to raise and regulate (train and organize) an temporary army (aka Militia). The 2nd is about resisting government tyranny and TJ couldn't have made it any clearer with VA's flag. Furthermore, the letters and debates from the drafting of the BoR, as well as the amendment process also clearly back this up. The implementation before the Revolutionary War [~24lbs cannons (remember cannon = shot weight, not piece weight) were only useful as city bombardment weapons and the colonist had them] and even after for nearly 150 years was not questioned (many WWI vets brought back a ton of machine guns). Even the regulation, which was passed as several Militia acts around 1792, only promoted the keeping and bearing of arms by the people and States. The regulation was merely defining what arms were useful for military use (remember the whole point of the 2nd is military use to resist tyranny) and requiring able bodied men to own them! On and on the record is clear, but real history isn't taught in schools any more. I know I'm preaching to the choir, but I wanted to make the point because...

The same thing has happened with our legal system. We inherited a brilliant Common Law system that was ~800+ years in the making (depending on who you ask, perhaps more like a 1000). At the very least we can point to the 1215 Magna Carta Libertatum (The Great Charter of the Liberties of England) which the people forced King John to sign as a definitive milestone in the Rights of Englishmen. This was the result of a rebellion concerning the Kings unjustness, it didn't spring up overnight. So many of the protections we inherited have been disposed of by an evermore powerful central government; calling it federal at this point is really a gross misuse of terms (federal and central being organizational structures). The people use to be able to try not just the facts of the case, but the very law itself! If the law was viewed as unjust by your peers, it was no law at ALL! Of course government tyranny posing as law hates being tossed out like the trash it is, so that had to go. We use to have prohibitions against Ex Post Facto law, but ever since the EPA, that's gone as well. On and on, we have precious few legal protections any more and this President, and the previous one, are determined to remove the rest.

This is important to understand because the United States and Virginia inherited this legal system and it is still law. This is one reason VA is referred to as a Commonwealth, it was to uphold the Common Law for the benefit of all. It's not a socialist utopia, it's a legal protection assertion. This is why many lawyers argue VA doesn't need a castle doctrine. We actually have something much stronger than mere statutory law coming out of Richmond; its nearly a millennium of existing Common Law which defends SD.

The Common Law splits laws into two categories and they are not equal. There is what the 18th century natural philosophers would call the "Natural Law," Christians referred to it as the ethical portions of the 10 commandments, etc. This is laws which no one needs to be told are law. They exist outside of the government and have always been wrong. This was called mala en se; evil in of itself. This is the law which Blackstone documenting the Common Law refers to as the law we all know and are bound too. This is radically different than mala prohibita which is merely state prohibitions. States prohibit many things which are not evil in of themselves, although they will attempt to justify it as such. (See 2nd Amendment debates of late) There is nothing unethical about owning an AR15, yet murder by any means is still murder. Prohibiting AR15s is merely a state prohibition, murder is evil in of itself. There is no acceptable claim of ignorance for murder, but for state prohibitions there was. This concept goes back all the ways to the Roman Empire (possibly before, but my knowledge of anything pre-dating this is limited):

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges. Translation: The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government. Variant: The more corrupt the state, the more laws. Original Quote: And now bills were passed, not only for national objects but for individual cases, and laws were most numerous when the commonwealth was most corrupt. Tacitus Annals 117, Book III, 27. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tacitus

This allowance for ignorance as an excuse for state prohibitions was as much philosophical as it was practical. Consider your children. Do you punish them for a law you made up, never posted or instructed them in? Of course not! That would be cruel and contrary to the responsibility you have as a parent. Why should the state be any different? Under the Common Law it wasn't. When the state kept its laws in check and there were only a handful of long standing prohibitions, ignorance really isn't a problem and no jury would accept that defense. However, if the state has tens of thousands of laws across yards of volumes, even contradictory at times, ignorance is a valid excuse. The very lawful principle of excuse by ignorance also keeps travellers safe since laws varied so much.

The most important thing it did was keep the regulatory state in check. Since the people could try the law as well as the facts and ignorance was also a valid excuse for a regulatory state run wild, law makers had to their desire for domination with the practical realities of if they regulate too much they will simply be ignored.

Please don't use that phrase like that any more. It's inaccurate, actively degrades our legal system and encourages the very abuses we have today.

[Tweaker]

What is also sa is that a "professional police firce" has no knowldge of the laws they supposedly enforce. I don't understand how they can stay employed while demonstrating such lack of knowledge. Ignorance of the law is no excuse - it works both ways.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

"it works both ways."

It sure doesn't.

You don't know the law, you go to jail. He don't you go to jail, he goes for a donut break.

Some animals are more equal than others.

[GeneFrenkle]

What is also sa is that a "professional police firce" has no knowldge of the laws they supposedly enforce. I don't understand how they can stay employed while demonstrating such lack of knowledge. Ignorance of the law is no excuse - it works both ways.

That's not the correct way to use that "quote..."

...

Ah-ight - the spanking is noted. Scratch the last sentence given it doesn't add much to the opinion and can be confused with the oft overused quote.

Revised: What is also sad is that a "professional police force" has no knowledge of the laws they supposedly enforce. I don't understand how they can stay employed while demonstrating such lack of knowledge.

Point: Such demonstrated lack of domain knowledge generally results in elimination from the workforce rather than acceptance as the norm.

(for the record, i really hate the soft keyboards on mobile devices)

[Reverenddel]

I know some cops that are very informed, and want to cause as lil' negative affect in citizen's lives.

And I know some I wouldn't piss on to put the fire out...


They hate citizens, and view themselves ABOVE the law! I wish there were a CITIZEN'S PANEL to review Police Abuse of Power... remove IAB completely.

[dusterdude]

That dude had his poop together

[steelheart]

Thank ya jake! Dumb ass cops.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Lorger]

Aside from the cops knowledge, an ID check is S.O.P. he clearly states that their were concerned citizens, and the beginning of the recording is missing. I watched this vid like a year ago

[gunderwood]

Aside from the cops knowledge, an ID check is S.O.P. he clearly states that their were concerned citizens, and the beginning of the recording is missing. I watched this vid like a year ago

Just because something is SOP doesn't mean that the LEO has the legal authority to do it. It just means that most people don't know their rights and will comply (thus making it "ok") with perceived authority. In a way the LEO is using their position of authority to gain access to things that you would tell anyone else to get lost for. People don't realize that legally the officer is asking, not demanding and the resulting search/seizure is only legal because they complied/permitted it.

[arlington22201]

At what point does this practice become police harassment?

He was stopped without any reasonable suspicion and deprived of his freedom for a period of time.

The reason given was that "people are concerned." So what? Just because someone is concerned does not give them the power to use the government's policing powers to harass another citizen. I may be concerned about the way kids dress these days, the music they listen to etc etc. But that doesn't mean that I should call the cops on them or that the cops should respond if I do.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[mtbinva]

At what point does this practice become police harassment?

He was stopped without any reasonable suspicion and deprived of his freedom for a period of time.

The reason given was that "people are concerned." So what? Just because someone is concerned does not give them the power to use the government's policing powers to harass another citizen. I may be concerned about the way kids dress these days, the music they listen to etc etc. But that doesn't mean that I should call the cops on them or that the cops should respond if I do.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

+1 Agreed.